2021 (12) TMI 666 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheque - acquittal of the accused - complainant/appellant had not produced the registration certificate of the firm on record - document on record to show about Sh. Rinchen Thomas being the managing partner in the complainant firm and Sh. Rinchen Thomas having further authorized Hem Raj to file the complaint - HELD THAT - The appellant/applicant (therein) ought to be granted one chance to place and prove on record the partnership deed. The matter is remitted back to the learned JMFC, who shall afford an opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence with regard to the factum of partnership as also due authorization, if any, in favour of Sh. Hem Raj - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Failure to produce registration certificate and authorization documents - Application for additional evidence - Effect of non-registration of partnership firm on maintaining complaint under Section 138.

Analysis:
1. Acquittal under Section 138 NI Act: The appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court acquitted the respondent citing lack of proof regarding the complainant's authority to file the complaint. The court noted the absence of the firm's registration certificate and the failure to establish the relationship between the complainant and the managing partner, which was crucial for authorization. The judgment emphasized the necessity to prove the complainant's status as a holder in due course and authorized person to file the complaint.

2. Application for Additional Evidence: During the hearing, the appellant sought to introduce additional documents through an application under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The documents included the partnership deed, a resolution authorizing the managing partner, and an authorization letter empowering the filing of the complaint under Section 138 NI Act. The appellant relied on a previous judgment by a Co-ordinate Bench to support the admissibility of additional evidence after acquittal.

3. Effect of Non-Registration on Complaint: The judgment referred to a previous case where the issue of maintaining a complaint under Section 138 NI Act by a partner of an unregistered partnership firm was discussed. The court highlighted that while civil proceedings may be barred for recovery by an unauthorized partnership firm, proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act are distinct. Citing relevant legal precedents, the court clarified that the nature of proceedings under Section 138 NI Act differs from civil suits for recovery, allowing partners of unregistered firms to pursue complaints under the Act.

4. Decision and Remand: The court allowed the application for additional evidence, following the precedent set in the referenced case. Relying on the judgment in the prior case, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment and remanding the matter back to the trial court. The appellant was granted an opportunity to present evidence regarding the partnership and authorization, with the respondent having the right to cross-examine and present their evidence. The parties were directed to appear before the trial court for further proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of proof of authorization, admissibility of additional evidence, and the effect of non-registration on maintaining a complaint under Section 138 NI Act. The decision to remand the matter for further evidence presentation reflects the court's adherence to legal principles and precedents in ensuring a fair trial.